뉴스레터

Mark W. Clark, Commander-in-chief of United Nations Command, who signs the armistice agreement 

(July 27, 1953, 1 p.m., in Munsan)

On July 27, 1953, the armistice agreement was signed at 10:00 am, and the battle was suspended at 10:00 pm on the same day. Mark W. Clark, a commander-in-chief of United Nations Command, announced a ceasefire to U.N. soldiers at 2 p.m. that day. And Maxwell D. Taylor, a commander of the eighth US Army, ordered a ceasefire in nine languages at 10 p.m.

A signing ceremony for the armistice agreement held at Panmunjom on July 27, 1953 at 10:00 a.m.

The person sitting on the left desk is William K. Harrison Jr., the chief delegate of the UN forces

The person sitting on the right desk is Nam Il, the chief delegate of the Communist Army

A Armistice Agreement in the View of Peace

After the signing ceremony, Mark W. Clark said, “The state of the Korean War will not end until the countries involved reach political settlement.” President Rhee issued a statement that he signed the armistice agreement, emphasizing that the goal of unification will surely be achieved. US President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued the following statement: “The truce in Korea was the only solution we could accept, on the issues that we thought would be almost unsolvable in terms of the world’s sentiments and political situation.” In a speech to the House of Commons, British Foreign Minister Selwyn Lloyd said: “The ceasefire in Korea is absolutely necessary for the Korean people’s peace and order.” And Lester B. Pearson, the President of the United Nations General Assembly, issued this statement: “The signing of the agreement means the end of a chapter called the end of bloodshed and conflict. But it’s just the beginning of a difficult new chapter the Protection of Peace.” In their words, there are various interpretations and meanings of war and truce. The point is that a truce is needed and the only solution at the moment, but the political task 'protection of peace' remains.

The armistice had suspended the war, but left a political task on the Korean peninsula. But now it is not the end of the war, but the 'truce' situation. This is why it is argued that the armistice agreement should be converted into a peace treaty. However, replacing the Armistice arrangement with a peace treatment, and converting the Armistice Regime into a Peace Regime is not necessarily determined. Let's look at the historical process of nearly 70 years since the armistice agreement was signed. There was a sharp confrontation over the subject of the agreement(between the South and the North, or between the North and the United States), and the withdrawal of foreign troops, and it is still ongoing. The ultimate goal is to solve the problem of the Korean peninsula peacefully, but there is still a disagreement about the contents and how to realize it. The start of this confrontation originated from the Truce Talks, and the prototype was formed at the Political Conference, which was held shortly after the armistice agreement was signed. In order to prevent the recurrence of war on the Korean peninsula and realize complete peace, it is necessary to recall the contents and meaning of 'the armistice agreement' from the viewpoint of 'peace'. And it left a challenge that a political solution is needed to go to a complete peace. The process is still ongoing for nearly 70 years after the armistice.

Geneva Conference in 1954

The Main Content of the Armistice Agreement

The armistice agreement signed on 27 July 1953 consists of preamble, article(I–V) and annex(I–XI). Article 1 is Military Demarcation Line(MDL) and Demilitarized Zone(DMZ), Article 2 is Concrete Arrangements for Cease-Fire and Armistice, Article 3 is Arrangement Relating to Prisoners of War, and Article 4 is Recommendations to the Governments Concerned on Both Sides, Article 5 is Miscellaneous. And annex is Terms of Reference for Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission. Among them, Article 4(60) contains the peaceful resolution of the postwar Korean peninsula question.

“In order to insure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military

Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the

countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the

Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a

higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to

settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces

from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.”

The most important word in this part may be 'recommend'. Both sides agreed only to be ‘recommended’. So they agreed easily, but it was hard to expect a performance.

Initialing ceremony of the Mutual Defense Treatment Between the United States and the Republic of Korea held in August 1953 

(Source: National Archives of Korea)    

The issue of the truce talks: political issue or not

The truce talks were a process of military end to the war and preparing for the post-war period. So both sides were sharply at odds from the selection of the agenda. They tried to find a compromise by experiencing the process of the war, the negotiation strategies of each country, the opposition to the ceasefire in Korea, and the complicated negotiation process. The United States argued that when selecting the agenda of the talks, the military armistice and the ceasefire as a result should be made on conditions that prevent recurrence of hostilities. On the other hand, the Communist Army wanted to deal with the political settlement of the Korean peninsula as well as the military ceasefire.

At the start of the truce talks, both sides agreed to hold talks only on military issues. But the judgments on what is a military issue or not were different. They clashed from the 38th parallel as a DMZ, and the selection of agendas related to the withdrawal of foreign troops. The Red Army demanded that the withdrawal of foreign troops be included in the agenda as a ‘military issue’, but the United States judged it to be a ‘political issue’.

As a result of the talks, the articles in the agreement are the ones both sides agreed on the agenda. If the MDL and the DMZ, the ban on military build-up, and the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission were measures to prevent the recurrence of the war, the provisions related to the Geneva Conference were aimed at a permanent solution to the Korean Peninsula question. The two provisions placed in front of the agreement focus on 'maintaining an armistice regime that does not know when to continue'. On the other hand, the clause related to the Geneva Conference tried to overcome the incompleteness of the 'military armistice arrangement' and to solve the Korean peninsula question completely. What that means is evident in the 1954 Geneva Conference.

Geneva Conference: Withdrawal of foreign troops, and Unification of the Korean Peninsula

Shortly after the ceasefire, a preliminary talks was held at Panmunjom to hold a political conference in accordance with Article 4(60) of the Armistice Agreement. But it broke down without any agreement. After the break down of the preliminary working-level talks, both sides sought a more realistic solution. As a result, the Berlin Conference decided to deal with the Korean issue at the Geneva Conference. The Berlin Conference of 1954 was a meeting of the ‘Big Four’ foreign ministers of the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union from 25 January to 18 February 1954. ‘Big Four’ explained in a joint statement: “This conference considers that establishing an independent Korea by unification in a peaceful way is an important factor in easing international tensions and restoring peace in other parts of Asia. This is to resolve the Korean question in peace.” This shows that peaceful resolution of Korean questions is to establish 'unified and independent Korea'. Accordingly, the Geneva Conference held for the peaceful resolution of the Korean question was mainly discussed on the unification plan of the Korean peninsula. For this reason, the Geneva Conference is regarded as the starting point of the Armistice regime after the war and the first and last international conference officially dealing with the unification plan of the Korean peninsula.

A total of 19 countries, including the Korean War Veterans(15 of UN forces, South Korean Army), North Korea, China and the Soviet Union, participated in the Geneva Conference from April 27 to June 15, 1954. Of the combatant nation, South Africa did not attend the conference. The unification plan was dealt with as a key agenda, and the issue was the withdrawal of foreign troops and the recognition of the authority of the United Nations during the discussion. Both sides insisted on peaceful reunification by election as a way to resolve the Korean question peacefully. However, the UN forces insisted that the Chinese troops should withdraw first. And they proposed that the two Koreas should organize a unified parliament by conducting general elections in proportion to the population under the supervision of the United Nations. On the other hand, the Communist Party said that after all the foreign troops withdrew, and the election law should be established by forming a 'Whole Joseon Committee' in which representatives of the two Koreas participate in the same number. And proposed a general election under the watch of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission.

Both sides showed differences in method of election and supervising for election, and they showed great differences in how to solve issues related to withdrawal of foreign troops. The UN forces insisted that Chinese troops were an invading force, and that they should withdraw from Korea first. On the other hand, the Red Army insisted on immediate simultaneous withdrawal of all foreign troops, including Chinese troops and UN forces. However, the UN forces maintained that the UN forces would not withdraw until the unification of the Korean peninsula was achieved.

There was a difference in position in the attitude of each side to the Geneva Conference. In particular, as the Red Army raised the issue of the role and status of the United Nations, whether to recognize the authority of the United Nations emerged as an issue. This perception of the United Nations by the Red Army was nothing new. However, the United States stopped discussions at a time when the authority of the United Nations became a full-scale issue. Eventually, the Korean Queschen was transferred to the UN General Assembly and the Geneva Conference was unilaterally concluded.

Geneva Conference and Military Alliance

The Geneva Conference can be seen as an attempt to resolve the problem through negotiations in the extension of truce talks. But there was less room for compromise or negotiation. At the truce talks, both sides had to compromise and agree to achieve a ceasefire after the battle. On the other hand, there was no force in the Geneva Conference. However, this conference was a kind of 'field of propaganda' rather than an effort to find a practical compromise to solve the problem of the Korean peninsula peacefully. It was also close to political and diplomatic performances that set up the division of the Korean peninsula with the interests of the great powers.

The United States responded politically and diplomatically to the withdrawal of foreign troops through the Geneva Conference. Meanwhile, they formed the structure of the ROK-US alliance and made US Armed Forces in Korea stationed. This action was done shortly after the armistice, at the same time. Issues related to the withdrawal of foreign troops set by the Red Army as the agenda of the Geneva Conference did not affect the formation of the postwar alliance that was already underway. The United States adhered to the Geneva Conference and the international stage that it would not withdraw the UN forces during the war, and avoided controversy about it. At the Geneva Conference held after the war, the US position remained unchanged, and Korea demanded only the withdrawal of the Chinese troops, which is the invader.

After the Geneva Conference ended without success, the division continued for a long time on the Korean peninsula. This process was foreseen. Neither side of the conference thought that the division would be resolved in a peaceful way. They chose the 'peaceful management' of the division rather than aiming for unification through the 'peaceful solution of the Korean question' which is the purpose of the Geneva Conference.

Armistice regime, and Division

The armistice regime on the Korean Peninsula is the result of a war without winners or losers. It only works as a framework to maintain North-South and the structure of the divisions, with the 38th parallel being changed to the MDL. The battle was interrupted in the name of ‘armistice’, but no measures were taken to ensure peace. The armistice agreement dealt with only military issues under the name 'Military Armistice Agreement'.

In human history, the turning point of war and peace required a period of grace called 'armistice'. However, there is no precedent in which the condition of the armistice lasted for so long. Moreover, even though we are a party to the war, the armistice has been established regardless of our will. It is also unusual that the UN Command was delegated by the UN Security Council to oversee the implementation of the armistice agreement. This is the result of the Cold War after World War II, and shows the limitations and characteristics of the collective security system through the United Nations. Since the 1990s, the world has been in the flow of 'Post Cold War'. However, it is surprising that the Korean Peninsula is still tied to the Cold War. When can we get out of the ‘Cold War Museum’ and become a ‘Peace Exhibition Hall’?